On Mar 30, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Chad wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Krinkle
<krinklemail(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Can we just set it to an empty string and let the
numbers and hand-written
comment speak for themselves?
I think this will be more confusing. You need some text for
the radio field.
In any case these summaries are not meant to replace a
comment and I've never implied that they should. You
should always take time to explain your review, especially
if it's a -1/-2.
-Chad
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Krinkle
<krinklemail(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we just set it to an empty string and let the
numbers and hand-written
> comment speak for themselves?
Yes the radio buttons would have the +2/+1/0/-1/-2, just like they
after submission.
On Mar 30, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Chad wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Krinkle
<krinklemail(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> I couldn't agree more. So far all
proposal make implications that sometimes
>> simply aren't appropriate. Either they leave no room for fixing it
("Don't
>> submit it"), or are too much foccused on fixing something small, but
>> implying the overal intention is wanted ("Needs improvement") etc.
etc.
>>
>
> Perhaps we could go back to the all-encompassing "fixme." If
> we did that, I'd suggest adjusting the other ones to one-word
> summaries as well.
>
> -Chad
I'm not sure "fixme" is entire appropiate either :D
A gerrit review rejection (which is what a down vote suggests if it is
unfixable or not fixed) effectively covers both "fixme" and
"reverted"
(when compared to how we review SVN).
"fixme" is no different than "Needs improvement" (except stronger,
maybe).
-- Krinkle